>> john, there is a real set of issues. housing, employment, and welfare -- that critical group of issues where people feel they are not being given the right opportunities and there are responsibilities in return. we have to say clearly, yes, society will give you a chance, but you have responsibility to take it up. that is very important. secondly, you mentioned immigration. i do not wish to dockets. we have to be comfortable talking about immigration. if we're not, people will think we have something to hide. we have nothing to hide. immigration needs to be fair to people who want to come here. this country has given me incredible opportunity. [unintelligible] a point.g to make it's got to be fair. >> that is a good question.

i slurped a rigid as served in the 1990's when tony blair kamen, it is working class support. and they have nowhere else to go. so they were focusing on others. it was a lack of focus, why we did not introduce legislation on agency workers, and we move from being a party -- i know people market -- from being a top party that spoke at people. >> you log get a question -- such as letter. -- you will all get a chance later. >> i heard his reaction to the one woman, and when i heard the tape, i realized i had spoken to

her -- someone like her 3,000 tons. my daughter has waited two years for a council house, my son may not get a job next year, not to recognize and hear that, that was out of touch and we've got to get back in touch. i thought the largest membership in the country in my seat. the idea that if you bought abroad for our forces, and you get the wrong color of skin, that is not acceptable. we have to make the case for fairness. >> i'll try to give you equal time on this subject. >> she is supporting the and this leadership campaign. my ideas about housing, and the regeneration of towns like this. we forget these towns.

we're not serving our purpose. >> family is an important point. labour is about nothing if we're not breaking down this. it looked like we were courting the super rich. it appeared that we are intensely relaxed about that gaps in society. i never was. [unintelligible] >> i want to make this point which is that immigration is a class issue. it affects different people in our society differently. if you see people coming in to compete for your job, you worried that it lowers your wages and conditions. if you're looking to hire a builder, that is good for you. that does to the question that i and raised. we have to be tougher and protect people's wages and

conditions with the right regulations. people in my constituents raised -- were same -- [unintelligible] >> it is business which makes the case for free markets. we should make the case of their markets. -- of fair markets. you have to have proper controls and wages to start -- to stop undercutting. we can win the argument for immigration and diversity. >> let me say quite straight you about the immigrants. my daughter is an immigrant. -- i am the daughter of an immigrant. what i say to you, it is immigrants like my mother who came here to nurse in the 1960's, have contributed so much to the public sector. but meese must do is address the real issues and never fallen the scapegoating.

-- fall into scapegoating. who tomorrow? >> i cannot defend the system of benefits around europe where people could come to work, and send benefits back to children not living in this country. that fails a basic common-sense tests. >> we also, having looked at all the issues like controls and europeans coming here, we stand up for what we believe in. nothing did more to destroy us as politicians is that we only said what was favorable to a particular audience. >> what did you hear? >> i am impressed by everyone here. i would like to say that i'm not

remotely racist and i'm not entirely in less, less british then you are. we have to become united is a country and we're not at the moment. we have to be fair to all immigrants, but we have to expect them to accept our culture. to lets move on candidates question. >> dan referred to earlier. in the last week, have challenged the media consensus that there is no alternative except to cut spending now and that we should spend more on housing and jobs to support the economic recovery. what other areas to the canada is think we need to challenge the media consensus in order to run the argument for the margin the biggest political problem is

looking into an aisle at the financial system relation. we have to set forward a credible alternative. we need to pay back the deficit. more should come from taxes, because times like this, if you have cuts that we're looking at,, and a difficult argument that this should not give the nhs increases right now. i would give inflationary increases. >> it is right to say that we should challenge the media consensus. i would challenge on this. this leadership election is a race between the two miliband brothers. we want to say to you is that there is -- it will not be the

media decides the election, but the labour party. >> the most dangerous media consensus, the national minimum wage, saving on our national health service, improving schools faster than anywhere, the greatest danger for the labour party in the future britain is that we have stagnant wages when we're more confident than we were in 1997 and we have to depend that with absolute passion. if if we trash our record, no one will believe this and our future. >> the argument about the deficit goes to a very deep question about the future of our country. i think that we should change the tax and spending balance that we had the time of the election in our plan. i think we should get more out of the bank's in order to protect public services in child

benefits. we have to win the bigger argument -- it's the only thing that matters in the upcoming four years to reduce the deficit. they wanted to believe it does not matter what happens to your schools or your highways or your home service. if we had heard that in 1945, we would not have built a national health service. >> deal really think there is immediate consensus on that? >> most people are hitting -- hearing about cuts. jim webb been told that there is no alternative, cut and cut now. there is no other way. labour has the confidence in the credibility to say that this is the mistake of the 1930's and 1980's. you do not cut your way into recovery. when the private sector is not spending and investing, we should be building more housing and investing in schools.

it would create jobs and get more people paying taxes. >> we have to pause in this debate. we have got another question which we're going to ask our candidates to write down the answers. no one chatted up. which long-running itv, finished for good this week? we will find out if they know the answer in just a moment. welcome back to the sky news labour leadership debate. we're here in norwich, long- running itv drama in the this week?

diane abbott is too busy to watch drama. let's move on to some quick fire questions, quick responses from the candidates to topical and other issues. the question is -- is a fresh investigation needed into the news of the world phone hacking allegations? >> yes, it is. these allegations go to the heart of david cameron is a town industry. some said they knew about the acting that was taking place, and their multiple people saying that. >> @ balls. could yes, for the reasons ed said but the question is adjustments. you do not want to sweep it under the carpet.

you should get this sorted out. then we can move on. >> yes, there should be a fresh investigation. it is inconceivable that news of the world did not new but they are doing systematically. it is a question of judgment, david cameron judgment. did any of us could of been on this list who are being hacked into. anyone in this audience could of been on the list. it is very important at a time when we're serious about taking on the abuse of power by the state. the private organizations abusing people secretly and getting into their phone records, we need to know. >> yes, mr. cameron had been delivering lectures about restoring trust in politics. the position is fundamental to the information that the government puts out. we cannot have a situation where these questions keeps swirling

around this individual. they need to be cleared up once and for all. >> thank you for a lot. another quick fire questions. would you banned the wearing of the burka? >> no, i would not. what happened in france is worrying. it was meant to inflame tensions at the heart of europe. what does that say it did the muslim community? we have a wonderful tradition of freedom of expression. that's it applied on religious grounds. >> no, i would not. freedom of what you where it is very important in this country. i think it's an incredibly tolerant country and we should be proud of britain and i certainly do not think we should ban what people wear. no, absolutely not. the british is about being tolerant and respecting each

other. and whether people are roman catholic, muslim or jewish, they have different traditions, they have to run ways of doing things. the same as the church of england as well. absolutely not. >> know. you where will they ask, you where burka, it is a simple issue. my britishnes is tolerance for people and their way of life. >> no, but we have to do more i spoke about how we improved immigration. is not saying that people do with the light. we have to be a more united question -- united country. we have to bring people together across the line of race and religion. what you want to wear a burka or across, that is your right. >> bringing the country together, i did that i

represent the most constituencies at any of you. let's remember -- a generation of immigrants that were more passionate about britain. >> we will get into that segment to reply quickly on that one. what happened at the general election people were denouncing the number of polls that came to the schedule. that shows you that race and immigration are being divorced and that is a good thing. >> people opting out and go in their own way, that is the biggest threat to education in this country. [applause] >> of course people should be burka. where tear the >> we're going to go to our next question from the audience.

this comes from mr. todd sullivan. >> the government is going for a little honeymoon. how should we time are attacks and what should they be? >> we lost the election in 1983 because we did not calotte there and debate is a country, we have internal divisive debates and we lost the argument. it is risky now if we do not out there and make the argument. the public support for the cuts and labor has to sit back and wait for the planned head? that is nonsense. george osborne could say, it's painful but we have no choice. we will lose the argument. we have to be out there now leading the debate, not following it. saying that there is no alternative. it is a hard thing to do to chase the consensus but you do

not leave if you do not win the argument. >> it is all about timeliness and doing it with responsibility. they did not want to see the labour party attacking everything. we have to understand and respect that. but we to attack them when they do something that will fundamentally damage this country in the long term. the white paper they have brought forth on the national health service needs to be fought every inch of the way. and they have combined -- they have committed a strategic error to combine the biggest ever financial challenge with a net -- unnecessary reorganization. we should buy a memorable battle against it. >> it is essential question for us. i will not oppose everything. i think they're right to drop by these cards. but i would go after them on their attack on many of the things we value in our society.

this is not a majority tory government. liberal democrats have a choice. the most important for our party is our next may's election where we defeat the coalition can it. many liberal democrats are following that clyde off a cliff. >> we have to make sure that we respect lib dem voters, but baiting them is not enough. we have to beat the conservative party. we have to have an alternative. you can never win a general election just by being at the opposition. we need a cheerless opposition, exposing more they go wrong, but we need a labour party that can earn people's trust by having a credible alternative on jobs, on health, on crime and at the social behavior. those of the big issues where we have to be back on the pitch as

the party of government. >> did the government cuts are not inevitable. you should have seen tory mp' s faces when george osborn did his budget. they want to see it cut back for all time. we need to place herself where ordinary british people are. they do not want the big cats that tories are proposing. they want to see a big program of public-sector housing. they've fought to see more jobs security. as these cuts rollout, people will see how bad they are. >> we should be very careful by falling for some idea that the coalition is a new politics. the hardest hit is families on the lowest income.

that is not new policies. that is conservative on fairness being propped up to buy some parts of the liberal democratic party. we should expose it for what it is. >> to people believe that they are necessary given the state that you view government services? >> let's set out a credible alternative on the economy, and lots of people in the media said, you cannot win that argument. one columnist came out and said, i am right and it will put us back into recession. >> ed is right about that. we need to change and win back the voters that we lost. the voters have voted liberal democrat, there were a whole range of issues, tuition fees,

of farm policy -- we have to go on a journey. with the to show that we take seriously cutting the deficit but we have a different vision of society and we showed that we increased our lives. >> you set something up want to take you up on. >> the question is. to people they that they are necessary? >> i am saying that these cuts in great measure to not. to responsibility but irresponsibility. >> the a lot of calls from not labor side of the hall. i wonder if anyone wants to come

and from our audience on this question. with the microphone. , you haveke to ask used the word change a lot. change what for what? my name is penny. >> the change that we need is to recognize where we are wrong and where we were wrong as a government. there millions of people on minimum wage. that is why i say i'm for a living wage. tuition fees have become a problem in this country. i think it's going to be hard for people to get to university because of the fear of debt. we need to look at our record and be willing to defend it and move on and change things where we gather wrong. >> we have to move on from this.

>> the idea that you have put forward for our future in this race, which would you say would best define your leadership? >> one idea. >> the importance of a council house building. it meant that you're listening to our people, listing to work councils, a real social need. people say that people are coming from outside and making cuts. it was our biggest failure, council housing. >> david miliband. >> i intended by a policy of rigid and answered to double lebanon -- the biggest thing that done is they will train up thousand community leaders around the country, including here, the fight against the plan

to switch off the street lights. trained at thousand community leaders to be a living, breathing demonstration of how the labour party can be the allied of people of conscious and goodwill. that is out when that trust. >> i think this issue of tuition fees does get to the heart of who we are. some people say that we should just increase them. a kid in my constituency, he will be told, you can pay 80,000 pounds into a top university, or 20,000 pounds to go somewhere else. we know how divided our country is. let's replace tuition fees with a fairer system, a graduate tax, that will allow us to pay more for your education.

>> on tuesday, i set out a detailed plan to spend 6 billion pounds this unit to build 100,000 more affordable homes to create three-quarters of a million jobs, at a time when the travel sector is setting consumption jobs, because the private sector is not building the houses and investing for the future. it is hard to say that because he knew people wonder if it can be afforded it. i do not think we can afford not to do it. we could have a longer recession. >> which one of those appeals to you? >> they've all got merit. there are some inspiring ideas. with that to be on the side of aspiration and helping people go online. -- on with life.

those taxes stand in the way of young people with the least getting on in my. labour must be on the side of the aspirations. it defies by policies of absolutions. the aspirations. -- first of all, we're going to have a our written question, our third written question. that question is, do not sat out the answer, what date is st. george's day? ok, stay with us. we will find out in just a moment. welcome back. this is the labour leadership debate. we are asking the candidates, what date is a george's day? the answer is the 23rd of april, also shakespeares birthday. ed miliband, and berman, diane

abbott said that descent. -- that it is sen. at balls and david miliband and got that it was the 23rd of april. let's move on to our next question. >> the idea of a graduate tax. it seems to be unfair. graduates will be moving overseas debt ovoid paying the taxes. >> is that a bad idea? >> alice one of the canada so opposed tuition fees of the time. the question is, what you do if you do not do that? it is problematic for the reason that you've said. the money does not go directly back to the universities. alan the rule of paying for

hijack -- higher education. it does have its problems. >> let's move on to add balls. -- ed miliband -- ed balls. >> unfortunately we lost that argument seven years ago. theink if you're expanding number of university presses, it is fair to say that people will get the benefit, but if you say to a family. no one has gone to university before, they did not want their children starting out in debt. it did get a job afterward, they make a contribution. that is a much better way to do it. >> there's a real problem in the current system people have a

specific figure attached to them. that will begin to put them off: the university. i remember graduating in the early 1990's, and they should both paid the same. what we have to do is talk more about young people that have a realistic hope that they would get into a career beyond university. we need to and the insidious culture of unpaid work. it is very hard for young people make their way in the world today. it can be much easier for those who deny well-connected parents. to get on in life after university. >> i and the standee anxiety you express about graduate tax. i do not agree with diane about

single taxation. when i think about educating, the early years are the things that really matter. you come to that conclusion, it that the tories. if you stick to the current system, it means higher debt. or do you have the courage to change? that is what a graduate tax is a fairer system. the more you earn the but the more you pay back. at think they would understand. >> the taxes on graduates are the right way forward. you have to look at the details, not just the slogans. we don't have up-front fees now. they have been abolished. they are only paid back once you are earning $15 and pounds of gear as a graduate. we have to make sure there is not a barrier on the basis of ability to pay. it is a good thing there has been a 20% increase in the number of kids from poor families going into higher

education. we should always look at how to make the system more fair. >> so what is the answer? >> we have the brown review going on at the moment. there are numbers in the number of ways to make the system fairer. you end up with people with two- year degrees subsidizing someone with a four-year degree. that is the principle of fairness that was raised earlier in the question. >> the problem is, the fact that universities are saying they do not have enough money. higher tuition means a market in higher education. >> no one is arguing for higher tuition fees. what the brown review is looking at is different ways for people on different and higher incomes to pay a fair contribution towards the cost. i think we should look carefully at the details. >> while this is a very

important debate, it is about time that the labor party stop talking more about the fit to present signed of young people who are not going to go to university. [applause] we need to be talking about their life chances in their career progression. it is about time we addressed this and started talking about those young people a bit more. [applause] >> andy is quite right. wheat tried to drive for the number of printed ships. -- apprenticeships. the labor party also has to hear what people are saying. the reality is, too many people said in the election campaign, why are you making it harder for our students to coach the university?

your out of touch. >> in the interest of fairness, the final question. >> you are all relatively young men. you have all had tremendous careers over 30 years at the heart of the new labor project. people of good will can differ about policy. what actions of labor do you most regret, and why did not say anything at the time? >> david miliband. >> is too much about 1 n against each other -- one man against each other. our policy is about redistributing power in our country so that people have control over their own lives.

we have to practice what we preach about standing together, but also making sure we did when tony interfered with the selection of 10 livingston in london and when he interfered in wales, it was part of the culture. i believe in a bottom up policy. >> the thing ammo's regret is that new labor became like old labor -- the thing i must regret. it became stuck in the past. if you think about the banking crisis, low pay, civil liberties, we clung to old foreign-policy, and the relationship with america. that is why it this must be a change election for labor. unless we change and move on from those old ideas, we will not bring back power. >> it is not enough to talk about change in value. we have to set out policy. new labor did that in 1997 but

we lost our way in the second term. we got in an argument that said private good, public bad. we gave the impression that public-sector work is a problem. tony blair was furious with me. i was willing to speak on some of these issues. --the end >> coming straight from university to a career in politics, it gave me a different perspective. new labour was formed out of a distrust in its own roots. we had to develop a top down controlling style, which never appealed to me. going forward, we need to change

that. we need to break this political elite is and that has had a grip on labor for 16 years. andet's trust our members partners. >> diane abbott. >> are represent one of the poorest constituencies in the country. at the end of 13 years, people are incredibly cynical. it was things like the top down approach and the iraq war that led to a corrosive dissolution. people cannot even see what we actually done with our investments. >> i think you very much indeed. we are drawing to a close. we will have to questions going into this break. a question for you to write down the answer. how much does it cost to buy a

single euro millions lottery ticket? what is the first line of the second verse of the red flag? not the chorus, but the first line of the second verse of the red flag. >> welcome back to the leadership debate. we have been asking our candidate some general knowledge questions. the cost of the ticket is 2 pounds. anyone want to have a go at the second verse of the red flag? >> [unintelligible] good.t's very

there you are. [laughter] none of them got that, but i can give you the final scores out of five. diane abbott has a perfect round, 0 out of 5, david miliband, three out of five. andy burnham bought the lottery question. congratulations. moving on to some quick fire questions. this is a topical question, giving the front page of the sunday telegraph. this is the former military chief saying blair and brown have betrayed our troops in iraq and afghanistan. did they, david miliband?

>> it really pains me, because there are people in our country who have lost sons and daughters in afghanistan and iraq, and that is toward enough for anyone to live with. but to then be told it could all have been easier are better if it had not been for some bureaucrats or politicians, is just not true. we have armed forces fighting in some of the most dangerous parts of the world with the best equipment they have ever had. richard went to afghanistan and complain that he was all-around by an american helicopter. it is good that there are 43 countries there in a coalition. it is good that we are not having to provide everything. it is very important that people send a very strong message that we are committing our troops in the most dangerous of circumstances. they are getting incredible support from the country but also from their own -- let's have a debate about the right judgments, but to start planning on individual acts is completely

wrong. >> this is a misplaced criticism. i saw tony blair and coast region close quarters when he was taking some of the most difficult decisions. they agonized about the decisions they were taking, always questioning what they were doing. i think it is not fair to make this criticism. both men knew their obligations to the young people they have sent to the front lines in afghanistan and iraq. >> it is dreadful language he is using. whatever mistakes were made, tony blair agonize very hard about the decisions that he took. in afghanistan, we have troops serving there and doing a heroic job. our job as a party and a future government is to always make sure that the mission is being carried out properly.

this language is reprehensible. >> he hat and said that gordon brown had a maligned attitude. >> defense spending went up by over 10%, and in the teen years before 1997 it went down by 30%. the equipment was there. i think he move in an unseemly way from being a military leader. playing politics is a mistake. [applause] >> i think he discredited himself. everyone knows i am the only candidate against the iraq war. no western occupying army has won a war in afghanistan into centuries. americans would still be in vietnam if we thought like that.

we need to put our considerable skills into supporting them with nation-building and development. we have to bring our troops home. >> thank you very much indeed. it is time for the closing statements from the five candidates, each of whom wants to lead the labour party. starting with andy burnham. >> labor has been in the grip of a political elite. i came into this to break. as we go into the final stages of this race, i am fighting with everything i've got. i am fighting for different kind of labour party, one that stresses its members, that values its counselors and works constructively with its trade union partners. i want your support to rebuild

labaour from the bottom up as the people's party. [applause] >> on the big issues like iraq, which did so much to destroy trust in politics, i was right at the time, and my rivals were wrong. i am only -- the only candidate who has spent 18 years as a single mother. i have a little more experience in the real world. in the 21st century, this may be what labour looks like. [applause] >> our challenge is not to revive old battles, but to have new ideas. i don't just know what i am against, i know what i am 4. redistribution of power in

britain and a different kind of labour party. that is why i am the unity candidate in this election. i think i can be david cameron. with your support, we can win. [applause] >> there has been a lot of debate in this election. i am the candidate who set out a radical plan on jobs and housing. someone said to me, should we have someone who is more appealing? if we choose on that basis, we will lose the next election. we need someone who will stand up to david cameron. [applause] >> we have to change -- have to have the courage to change and move on to new labor.

we can write down all the barriers and aspirations including some that we have put their like tuition fees. i am the candidate who can best turn the page for labor. i am not a candidate for the new labor and establishment. i am the candidate who can change later, when back trust and win back power for a war party. >> thank you very much indeed. [applause] thank you to all of our candidates. the election is open, and in 20 days, there will be the announcement of the new labour leader. thanks to the host of this debate. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> prime minister's questions returns this week. british prime minister david cameron fields questions from the house of commons. you can see that live wednesday morning beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2 next, a look at house and senate races in the 2010 election. after that, "q&a" with financial analyst meredith whitney. then another chance to see a debate among those who are campaigning to become the next leader of the british labor party. now, a discussion on the house and senate races in the 2010 elections. from today's "washington journal," this is about 45 minutes. inues. isenstadt is the

national reporter for politico. labor day is the official kickoff. what should viewers expect? guest: what you will see beginning tuesday, you will see a barage of money coming in from interest groups in a last- ditch campaign in the final weeks of the race. there will be millions of dollars spent on the air and a last effort to define these races. host: where will that money be coming from, individual candidates or the outside groups like the democratic national committee or the republican national committee or the third party groups? one caller referred to the coke brothers and what they are spending for their third party 527 group. then you have karl rove at american crossroads. guest: we're looking at how

republican outside groups have into theseneled money races. the republican national committee is that a cash deficit compared to their democratic rivals. republican candidates are relying on these conservative outside groups to funnel millions of dollars. host: can they make up the difference? democrats have a cash advantage going into november. guest: democrats will at least have an cash advantage, and the fact that they on the white house. these conservative groups can help close the difference. host: what is it looking like for the democrats in the house, republicans in the house? guest: for democrats, it could not be that much worse. it is about managing your losses. democrats will have to decide where they want to cut their losses, which members they want

to invest in, which members are laws, which members can still be saved. for house republicans, it is about upping their game, deciding where they want to invest their funds to boost the number is as much as they can. host: that is the headline on the front page of "the new york times" this morning. democrats plan a political triage to retain the house. what are some of the races that democrats will have to say, we will not spend any money on your race? gu guest: democrats and very conservative district. democrats that barely one -- virginia and maryland. then you have democrats that face tougher calls. chett edwards faces a tough

race. these are members represent conservative districts. this may not be the year for them to save their seats. host: what will be the game plan for the white house to save the majority in the house? guest: to be very cold-blooded in their a look and where they need to invest in these races. decide where their money can make a difference. host: will the president be campaigning for individual candidates? will he stay clear and fund- raiser for them instead? what will he do? guest: i think you'll see president obama heading up the new york checkbox pretty soon. he will head up the los angeles checkbox. -- checkbooks. many of the conservative democrats -- and democrats in conservative districts, do not want to have the present campaign for them. the individualize their races. the distance themselves from the

national party. host: the first lady is going to spend some of her political capital and carefully stepped into the campaign season. where do you expect to see her? guest: we have not seen a lot yet as to where exactly michelle obama plans to weigh in. we know she is very popular. what we also know is that she is planning on increasing visibility and a final two months of this year. host: will see mostly talk about issues or on the campaign trail? when you talk about raising her profile. guest: she will be very active with her get healthy platform she has been running out there. we also know that she will be making appearances with laura bush next week in pennsylvania to commemorate 9/11. we are expecting to see more for. it is not clear how active she will be on the campaign trail. if you read the reports, they indicate that she may be weary

of waiting too deep in the political waters. a lot of the republicans do not want to be too close to the national party, either. a lot of them are taking the anti-washington banner themselves. we are seeing someone like dick armey coming out. some of these candidates are taking in a tea party leaders. i do not think you'll see that many republicans running close to washington. host: what influence will sarah palin have? guest: she has been active in endorsing candidates across the country. how active issue will be remains to be seen. it will very district by district. host: we are talking with alex isenstadt of politico about this year's campaign season and what to expect. ads, money, you will see it

happening in the months to come. little rock, arkansas. paul, republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i think the republican party will gain control of both houses of congress. i think they should because we need to get back to a common sense agenda for america. host: all right. let's talk about american crossroads a bit more. i thought when i read, this is karl rove's group, when they first came out there would be paying a lot of attention to state legislatures and governors, because they were looking more towards the future of the republican party and of trying for re-districting to make sure there was a strong influence on the state level. have they had to re-focus?

or have they planned all along to be focused on these house- senate races? guest: there is a big portion of both parties right now that are focused on the state legislature and re-disk testing right now -- re-districting right now. if you look at american crossroads, they are taking a advantage of what is a great opportunity for republicans across the country, to take over the house and possibly even the senate. if you are a republican now, you know where your dollars need to be going. host: american crosshairs is out with a new advertisement, going after michael bennett, to replace now interior secretary ken salazar. take a look at this ad. >> coloradans are in debt to washington.

it spenders like michael bennett are spending $2.5 billion per day, wasting billions on failed stimulus programs. the result? over 100,000 jobs lost. bankruptcy's reaching an all- time high. it might be we have nothing to show for it. call. tell bennett to stop spending. host: that was american crossroads gps. ed gillespie's and karl rov'ee's group. >> for 100 years, we the people have picked our senators. but ken buck wanted to r ewrite the constitution. he proposed ending our right to vote for our own senators. rewriting the constitution,

ending our right to vote? ken but is too extreme for colorado. the democratic senatorial campaign is responsible for the content of this advertisement. host: what is going on here? guest: what is going on is that you have republicans trying to portrayed michael bennett as connected to the national party, as someone who is weak on spending issues. then you have democrats tried to cast ken buck, the republican nominee, as someone who is of step with colorado voters. who is far too conservative. host: charlie cook wrote that it seemed a mathematical possible -- in possibility that republicans could score at 10 seats. but he is saying that it is not out of the realm of possibility now. guest: it is not out of the

realm of possibility, but it is still unlikely. republicans would have to win in states they have not typically one. states like washington, a state by california or wisconsin, where russ feingold is running for reelection. democrats have a fire wall that republicans will need to barge through to take control of the senate. host: why is russ feingold in trouble? the president is going there tomorrow. will the senator be with him? guest: they have a better opportunity because they have a self-funded candidates, who is spending a lot of money. he is going on the airwaves heavily. he will be difficult to defeat. polls show the race very close. host: los angeles.

our independent line. good morning. what is your question or comment? caller: i am listening to this about economic stimulus, and i think our whole system is antiquated. what they expect to gain from new technology is even surpassing their own intelligence. i think our senate, our government, our president, i think that is beyond their scope. i think we need to get people more educated, in the sense they understand what they are doing and what we are transitioning to. you cannot transition to an economy with a new product and shut everything else down and expect to create jobs. host: let me bring this back to campaign 2010. are you saying that the candidates out there do not have the economic background, education to bring us out of our economic situation? caller: i think they are depending on the very secretive way of turning around our

economy with the new technology that they expect to have. no one has really talked about exactly what that is. host: how are you going to vote? carly fiorina in the senate race foreg whitman running governor. caller: i will vote for fiorina. i won't vote for whitman. on top of being educated, you have to have a human conscience. the: let's talk about senate race in california. barbara boxer versus carly fiorina. he will vote as an independent for carly fiorina. guest: a very democratic state.

if republicans win california, they could take over the senate. that is exactly how bad a year it is. a tough race. a tough battle looms. she raised a lot of moeny ney. she is pressuring fiorina as too far right for voters. host: go to our website if you want to watch the exchange in their debate. lexington, ky. al on the democratic line. caller: i was calling to comment on the bush legacy and his legacy as what has got us into this quagmire. taking care of the rich folks where the trickle down has never

gone to pour people. it is what he has done over the past eight years that got us into this dilemma. host: is that sentiment enough to get you ought to vote for democrats? caller: absolutely. we cannot put tea partiers in like rand paul, will not do anything for blacks and minorities. he will go back to years of the reminders of slavery and those types of things. all these people have the same ideas thatbus bush had. host: al, do you think your democratic friends are is motivated as you are? do you have any concerns? caller: if we can get the economy stimulated, and the w a bring middle class

folks in, and quit the republican party -- the party of no. host: we got your point. let me have alex isenstadt handicap the kentucky senate race. . . host: jim on the republican

line. good morning. caller: i think if we get the right republicans in line this time, we can gradually eliminate social security. we can eliminate medicare, department of education, and eliminate the month. we need to get rid of all the big government programs. host: who are you voting for in the senate race? caller: rubio. i like charlie crist, but he is not conservative enough. host: what about our next governor's race kristin mark caller: i am going to vote for the republican, who ever is. two vital job plans are fuzzy on

details. republican rick scott and democratic alex sink are duking it out in a hostile race to be governor. they agree that more jobs are needed. columbia, south carolina, george, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. you got a good point, the guy that called before had a good point. america has got to wake up. the republicans don't care about you, the democrats don't care about you. you got to care about yourself. you can't vote for a party. c-span, you got three lines, independent, democrats and republicans, splitting the country up. you all are splitting the country up. the politicians pitting the republicans against the democrats, vice versa. it's not going to work. all of them are crooked.

host: all right. are republicans looking at these favorable numbers they've seen coming out of gallup saying they can take back the house with a wide margin in those numbers? any concern that the sentiment that the caller stated, neither party cares about the constituencies, and the caller before that talking about president bush. guest: there is anger at about the parties. voters polls show voters are taking out anger at democrats. republicans fare well in these races. host: next caller, florida. caller: the job issue is important to me and my adult children. i'll be joining many workers

that will be at the msnbc rally in washington, d.c. october 2. i support meeks and gray son here in orlando. i believe that as republicans rule again, we'll go back to a corporate rule like we had under bush. bush's tax cuts back in 2001 was supposed to give corporations ins septemberive to say reinvest in the workplace, but they didn't, they did not upgrade machinery or produce more jobs. instead, like my corporation i work for, they made one worker do the work of two or three, stopped giving raises on bonuses, and bush's secretary of labor chow cut back on how much overtime you can make. i think many americans remember this. host: ok. let's talk about those two races she mentioned, the senate race in florida, and the house race

with grayson. grayson. guest: florida, you have three very serious candidates running, governor charlie crist running as an independent, mark rubio and congressman meek. charlie crist has tried to peel away voters in order to advance. rubio is picking up republicans. charlie crist is trying to win more centrist voters. how much success crist has in doing that could well determine the outcome of this race. the alan grayson race, fascinating playing out in orlando. gayson has been very visible an msnbc and liberal talk shows. he has raised a lot of money,

not apologized for his support of the republican agenda. can he win in a democratic orlando city is the question. host: how are you going to vote this november? i'll vote republican. i'll go to reasons here. i think all our job situations created with the lack of proper care of incoming goulds in this country. those tariffs are to be used to give tax breaks. tax breaks create balance of trade, give our companies a good footing here in this country to compete. world trade is good. it's a good thing, but it's got to be fair and balanced. that's where the job situation has gone downhill in this country. concerning unions, if folks are concerned, they'll be asking

where do all the millions of dollars go that they pay in union dues. this money should be put away for their pensions, put in safe funds. now they're talking about another bailout for the u.a.w.? i don't think so. it's time we put a stop to that. host: ok, do you want to take the first part of his comments. guest: to the question of bailouts, there is a lot of anger at bailouts, has a lot of discontent across the country. a lot of democrats are running against the bailouts. they voted against that. republicans, too, have also seen some trouble with that. republicans who in primaries supported the bailouts, some of whom have lost their seats in primaries. host: what about the tough three or five issues that the voters are motor concerned about, economy, jobs, jobs, jobs,

number one. what else are people talking about? guest: spending is the other issue right now, and to a certain extent, health care has been an issue that volares are angry about. we have a story on our site today talking about how you only see democrats running against health care at this point, something that the white house and democrats, the message on that issue never gelled. host: democrats are running against health care? guest: absolutely. certain districts are spotlighting their opposition to health care and their vote against that bill. host: what are republicans doing on the issue of health care? guest: you're seeing republicans across the country slam the national democratic leadership for pushing health care and the ambitious agenda on cap and trade and spending. that's why we're seeing it come up in so many raises.

host: tim, independent line. caller: with two pieces of background, obama's approval rating being low, but popularity being high, and the way that congress has stalled, legislation gets through, but it can't get through the house or the senate. i realize that all politics are local, is there any thought, have you heard anything about more nationalized campaign where obama, almost a national campaign where obama really talks to the people and says look, everything is stalling because of filibuster in the senate, and we have to stop that or nothing is going to happen? and i'll step down now and hear your answer. host: tim, how are you going to vote this november? caller: absolutely going to vote democratic for one big reason, that tax break at the very top,

that 4.5%, that costs so much money, and does so little, and the c.b.o. has over and over said every dollar to goes to that top 2%, and i'm in that top 2%. only a dollar or two gets back into the economy, where everybody below, $1.60 goes back not economy. host: tim, have you ever voted for a republican. caller: yeah, i worked on reagan's campaign back in the day. host: did you vote for president bush? caller: absolutely not. guest: if you're democratic, here's the problem. there's very little time for democratic to say change the narrative, change the conversation that people are talking about.

from national point of view, the cake is baked. there is little president obama can do between now and the election. it's up to democrats in local races running for the house across the country, for them to define the race on their own terms. they are going to have to go negative against their republican opponents. there is up to the democrats in these individuals races right now. host: jack, democratic line from tennessee. good morning, jack, you're on the air. caller: on this race and stuff, it's going on between the democrats and republicans right now about taxes. in the old west, when they had gold mines and went out to ghost towns, today, it's over jobs overseas is the gold and stuff. we in the cut and run society, whereas the corporate world is not under the american flag.

in the bible, about god and satan, it's all about the rich man. god got rid of him, because he didn't care for the people. host: jack let's talk about tennessee's eighth district race. what's happening in this race. why is this so competitive. caller: it's the race for january to knower in tennessee. i don't think democrats could have picked a much better candidate than roy haran. he is state senator, well known pickup to have wonder if democrats can really win. the republican is a good candidate. a lot of people like him a lot. this could be a tough seat to hold on to. host: good morning, frank. caller: good morning. i'm a republican who is a

capitalist who thinks the democratic party has let the country down because they don't have an industrial policy. health insurance is killing american industry. you cannot afford to compete. when various companies go to other countries with different divisions, they tell you what your health care costs, that you are saving millions. host: we are talking about campaign 10 here. how are you going to vote in that senate race, pat toomey or sustak? caller: i think the lobbyists control the republican party. they are not capitalist, they are paralyzed. host: david berger writes in his column this morning, "the stark

choice in pennsylvania, that both of these candidates are trying to say they are moderate. do you believe that president toomey is a moderate republican? he brought in susan collins of maine for a fundraiser and told and interviewer that he would have confirmed justice sotomayor for the supreme court. caller: the republican party must help industry. if they do not, nobody will. the health care was doomed because it's not done in a way to protect. we have insurance companies last week, a guy retired with $133 million package. these people are taking money that industry has to make up. host: frank, we got your point.

host: toomey held the point that viewers can expect two months of ads arguing that the other guy is the extremist. alan, does that handicap that race? guest: toomey is a different candidate than we've seen run in the past. he was very conservative when he was in the house. when he ran against aurelian specter six years ago, he was known as being very conservative. enis running much nowhere moderate against joe sesak, congressman from pennsylvania. the question is is that can democrats written in pennsylvania, which is a battleground state in a very tough year. it could be an uphill battle for them, i think.

host: joseph from pennsylvania, independent line. you're on the air. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i'm an independent. i could never support republican. republican doesn't support unemployment or health care. they are always voting no on everything. i don't see any reason why anybody would volt forum. host: we'll go on to try, democratic line in greensboro, north carolina. go ahead, troy. caller: people are talking about job loss in the country. the biggest thing about the job loss is the and is the nafta t. it has hurt the jobs in middle class and manufacturing. host: nafta was put into place by bill clinton. given what you just said, what does that mean for how you will volt this november? caller: i will volt for

democratic. bill clinton did shine bill, but that wrong don't make right. we need to change it, make revisions to the nafta treaty. i want to comment on what people were saying earlier is that the unions are the reason jobs left the country. host: we are talking about campaign 2010. miller's campaign promise in alaska. he is saying less. alaska gets a lot of federal support. jill miller ran on getting less. if you're interested in this piece, it takes a look at who joe miller is. miller left the army to attend law school at yale, where a professor who new him well recalled a compassionate man who chose to move to alaska for a long internship. he could have clerked on the east coast, done extremely well

in kansas, instead, he's a real adventurer. he wanted to strike out and go to this frontier to make a name for himself. he lives on 20-acres with his wife outside of fairbanks. what is next in this senate race? guest: this was on no one's radar screen two weeks ago. democrats are taking a local look at this race. at the end of the day, it's hard to see national republicans invested in this race. california or pennsylvania, this is going to be a tough seat for democrats to win. it's more in play than it used to be. host: it's a republican-leaning state, likely that joe miller

wins? guest: absolutely. host: from new york, republican line, you're next. caller: i'd like to see term limits straight across the board. i think the problem is you get these career politicians elected, and they make all these promises when it comes to campaign and election time, but seems as though election time is over, they go back to their elitist club and they're self-serving. they forget about what the forefathers started our government for, to serve the people. democrats and republicans, they both need to be limited as far as how long they can serve, and then once we get down to that, maybe we can turn the country around. host: all right. we'll go on to massachusetts, maureen, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, how are

you? host: doing well. caller: good. i do have a comment. host: ok. caller: i follow this very closely, and i follow fox news very closely, as well as your station. i do feel very strongly that there needs to be a stimulus for the actual taxpayer. i think that if president obama would give money back to the taxpayer, you'll see the economy get back. host: what do you think that would do for democratic's prospects in november, if he were to put forth an idea that would go right to the individual, an economic idea? caller: i think it would help them, because i'm not going to vote democratic. even though i'm an independent, i will volt as republican. host: what about a payroll tax holiday. caller: no, i don't think so, because independent contractors, we don't get paid unless we sell. we cannot collect unemployment. he needs to put into this system a stimulus package for the taxpayer, and i mean money, i

mean like $15,000 to $20,000 per taxpayer. he can do it. host: if he did, would you vote for democrats? caller: then i would vote for the democrats, because he's now helping the people. the unemployment is over 9.8% right now. there is no money for the person to go spend, and there is no money in the housing. we went a whole year with no sales. congress has spent money on things they should not have done. give us a a break, give the cash to us. then he will see the economy come back. he always says i feel sorry for the taxpayer. host: what about the politics of the economy and jobs. the president is likely to focus on republican proposals, tax credits for businesses, a payroll tax holiday. does that sell to somebody like maureen?

guest: you have to discredit the republican ideas at this point if you're a democratic. there's no realtime right now before november for a legislative fix. we know the house and senate are going to be in session for three weeks and go home and campaign. there is not time to get things done on capitol hill. it's up to democrats and president obama to discredit republican ideas as much as they can before the election. is president obama going to offer any solution himself? the problem for democrats is the cake is pretty much baked. you haven't seen the kind of economic recovery that they wanted to see over the summer. host: we wanted to let our viewers know about the outlook section of the washington post. chuck schumer writes a long piece this morning about if democrats don't want to relive a disastrous 1994 year, that they should steal a page from the gop

playbook from 1980 to. kentucky, democratic line, go ahead. caller: i want to make a comment, and i'll get off and listen. i think the answer to everything is what obama is wanting to do, and republicans won't leave him alone, but all he has to do is release that reserve oil we have and let it get out on the market at a fair rate, and that will bring gas down where us poor people can afford it, and that will start the economy rolling, and then we need to invest in the refining business, because we to have refine it for all these people in our countries, and that will straighten the whole works out. host: raymond, are you going vote this november? caller: yes, ma'am, i'm going to vote democratic. host: why is that?

caller: because i always have. we never got anything when we got republicans in charge. host: are you motivated to get out to the polls? caller: yes, ma'am, i never missed one. host: all right. we'll go to the republican line. dan in pasadena. do you plan to vote in november? caller: yes, i do. host: how will you vote? caller: republican. i just feel that i do believe the democrats are in for a major crash, because all the programs to are going on. i do feel that the republican incumbents are not safe at all, as well, because they've been in there way too long. i think we will take the senate. host: dan, before you go, let me ask you about republican leadership. you said republican incumbents have been in there too long. what do you think about the leadership or john boehner

becoming speaker? caller: i think he will become a speaker. host: do you support that? caller: sometimes. i'm 50/50 on boehner. he is conservative, but he does have -- he lets his mouth get him in trouble. sometimes he doesn't think real clearly. i just believe that people should instead of counting on the government, if they want a hand to count on, it should be at the end of their own arm. host: let's talk about republican leadership. if republicans take control of the house, will we see a shakeup in the ranks? guest: you are going to see presumably if the republicans take control of the house, and boehner becomes speaker, cantor of virginia moves up to majority leader, then it's a battle for whip. kevin mccarthy could be

interested. you could see someone like mike pence of indiana, who is the current house chair interested. you could see a number of people interested in that position. then it shuffles down from there, who takes on the position of national republican chair, there would be seats up for grabs on the republican side. you don't see a big shift in democratic ranks if the republicans take over. host: if democrats take control, would nancy pelosi lose the top job? guest: that would be the million dollar question. everything would shuffle down from there and work itself out from that point on, but that would be a million dollar >> tomorrow on "washington journal," assistant economics

professor at george washington university, talks about the latest economic and unemployment numbers. brigadier-general jefforey smith, and discussion on the housing bubble. "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. next, q&a with a financial analyst meredith whitney. then a debate among those who are campaigning to become the next leader of the british labor party. after that, remarks by rick santorum at an iowa fund raiser. president obama travels to milwaukee tomorrow to talk about the u.s. economy at the al